tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 19, 2015 6:17pm-6:31pm EST
think a lot of these guys that are having problems you know i think ptsd is something no matter how much you talk about it, i don't think ptsd is going to go away. it is something you have to learn to live with an workaround, but but it's definitely something controllable and something that can be put to the back of your mind. excuse me. but i also know that it is going to be difficult for them to talk to somebody who hasn't in the encino. unless you have been there and witnessed it and gone through it and felt it they may have a hard time talking to you about it. the only thing you can do is be there for them. if they want to talk let them talk. let them tell you what other and no matter how bad, how shocking it may be, just love them. give them your undying support and let them know i am here for you. no matter what you've seen what you've done i am here for you because you served for me and
now i'm going to serve you. as far as the rest of your family thank you so much for everything your family has done and i'm really sorry that your son has gone through and made such sacrifices. i definitely wish of the best. postcode here is the book "american sniper: the autobiography of the ost lethal sniper in u.s. history". we've been talking with the author, chris kyle on booktv. thank you mr. kyle. >> guest: thank you, sir.
>> if you look at the budget for the war on drugs every year it is billions of dollars and so i was curious as to why that is and how does the war on drugs fit into the larger picture of american foreign policy? >> the war and trucks is something the u.s. has used with some justification, but to use that as justification for intervention activities across the globe. we generally associate the declaration of the war on drugs with president nixon in 1971, 1970 saying those words declaring the war on drugs. in one way to look at that time period, we could see the war on drugs is connected to the nixon administration. but if you go further back in u.s. history you realize nixon
didn't start the war on drugs. the warren trucks has had stricter policies domestically and abroad for most of the 20th century. he expanded it he'll march day, this open skies domestically and abroad, which is the area i was interested in. although the book will it go both areas in the united states and also around the world. nixon had a few things in mind. one there had been growing drug inside the united states. part of mr. nasty campaign was running on the mantra of law and order that he was going to restore law and order to the united states after the disorder of the 1960s. so there is that law and order seen. also, looking at drugs come as soon as this menace in connecting it antiwar opponents
and that is one way to kind of discredit them. there's various reasons why he declared the war on drugs. >> resonant mexican nation governors today discuss with the president called indeed a national problem. he proposed a nationwide campaign of education reached at the community level. >> it was an unlikely setting for a psychedelic happening. the president vice president, cabinet officials and governors meet at the state department to work together over the drug for the drug scene depending on your age. >> and nixon is not the first president as presidents before him and after him. drugs are pretty easy political issue. there something most people can agree on regarding being tougher on drug users and the criminals traffickers come at things like that. it's a rather easy issue for politicians to gain political
capital. the countryside looked out for thailand burma and mexico. the reason i looked at those countries was the drugs that u.s. policymakers, officials were most concerned about and that they thought did the most damage or cause the most crime was heroin. the u.s. focused on thailand, burma and mexico. the goal with the policies of nixon the ford administration, a carter administration was what we call a source control and that is attempting to eliminate or limit the amount of illegal drugs being produced at the source, but it's a more efficient resource versus saying interdiction, you know interdict drugs coming into the country. that usually nets 10% to 15% of the float.
the thought was and still is if you can go to the source of drug reduction, in this case places where poppies are grown, opium poppies and hair when it's been refined that if you can delete those sources you can reduce the about the illegal drugs entering the country and subsequently claim you can limit the amount of addiction happening in the united states. one thing my book points out about a history of the war on drugs is each one of these countries i luck out, thailand, burma and mexico, but the strategies implemented they are became pretty much permanent features of the drug war. i mentioned alternative development thailand still going on today. what happened in thailand was the first large-scale attempt at that. mexico with herbicide and that continues to happen. burma is a strategy that we still see today.
in burma there was a lot of illicit opium production and they're still lives at that time, is that became the largest illicit producer of opium. in burma you had the biggest war between the central government and a bunch of different travel groups this upon ethnicity or a burmese party fighting against the government. each of these rebel groups was one way or the other involved in opium production and trafficking. it was one way they funded their cause. so the united states has subsequently done in many places across the globe provided military assistance to the burmese government in the form of helicopters surveillance, airplanes, surveillance equipment, night asian goggles and for the burmese government to build a better capacity to track down these rebels.
to defeat the insurgents which they thought would then decrease the amount of drug trafficking or to destroy the versions opium supplies her hair when refineries, which would also ensure and weaken the insurgency and also limit the amount of drugs being produced. in burma even though it's not called the of the whole concept of the narco guerrilla which comes into being in colombia stated as narco guerrillas in colombia in the 1980s the term was not around in the 70s. the concept is there in burma. for example in thailand where there is a legal opium production happening, the united states, the thai government and the united nations implemented a number of development programs aimed at getting poppies farmers to grow other crops and that was called crop replacement and now it is referred to as alternative
development. essentially it is just that attempting to get poppies cultivators to grow other crops for export and in the case of thailand, and a whole host of things. but the program in thailand, you know which took about 20 years to really have an effect was seen as a model as a successful program and therefore if we do it in thailand, it should be tried in other places. it has occurred in other places around the globe particularly in some cocoa producing countries in south america. even in the nixon and ford administration, since the carter administration amid the u.s. is providing funds for proper placement in thailand and it is seen as a successful model because it does go down. in the long rented a alternative development really has mixed success in reducing the overall
amount of illegal drugs being produced. nonetheless it was seen as successful policy in worthy of replication elsewhere. dea agents will look at the amount of purity of heroin in the united states to determine if there was a ratification programs having an effect on the amount being produced. is pure decoders down in the united states, they know supply has gone down, the amount being seized was another measure of success. so those are two of the metrics when it came to eradication policy is to see if they had any type of positive affect. when we look at the replacement of alternative development, one of the places for people who grow poppies, finding a replacement crop that brings a steady price and a good price is hard to find. we can see that even today in
afghanistan, which is the world's largest producer of opium attempts to get afghan farmers to grow something else really runs up against that problem at the price you could get first day we you know is a good 40 to 50 times less than what you get for the same amount of opium. so while policymakers claim if we can get these people to grow something else it will be better for them, in many respects these farmers have heard it made a rational economic choice and the poppies make sense. also, they are less intense and sometimes to cultivate particularly afghanistan takes a lot less water to grow poppies than it does week. so while the programs and a small successes overall, i don't take that they've had a great deal of success in limiting the amount of drugs being produced. traffickers adapt.
and so if you break up one organization that her actions into smaller ones. demand is relatively stable in places like the united states or western europe or wherever there is high demand for narc on a such as heroin. i think another thing lots of people have talked about in the quote, unquote area of globalization where you have increased trade across the globe and not just traded goods, but also opening up the financial systems across the globe and target police when you have a real tension there contradiction on the one level saying you will increase the amount of free trade of legal good, but at the same time come and be able to police the trade in illegal goods. the war on drugs has in terms of
saying that it's going to reduce the amount of drugs globally being produced are the rates of addiction and the united states has not occurred. so i think a lot of those criticisms that the war on drugs is not producing results is correct. one of the interesting things that i found when i was writing the book is that the time in the 70s, officials and american can about these different types of eradication policies and source control these.that while they couldn't totally eliminate illegal drug trafficking and addiction in the united states, but they really could put a serious dent in it, something that could be managed. subsequently what has occurred is the act, you can put temporary tents and teams. you can break up organizations, but that doesn't mean they trafficking is going to go away mainly because